Unsorted FBI Documents

)

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDR0 #860 Case file # 95-290381 .

> Material Examiner: Malone' (R.Q1

Remarks:

Case resulted in trial, transcript available.

\

TINDEPENDENT^ REPORT

.Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber .

, Review commenced at: 3:15 PM (Time), 03/13/2001. (Date)*

File#: • 95-290381

% '

Laboratory #(s): 91004076/00122032

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

Xa

□

□ ' ■

□

UF-

□

’ Xa . _ .

□

□

X

□. .

o

□

• . • Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcripts) of: Michael Malone

Testimony Datie(s): unknown Pages: 227-244

•Laboratory Report(s):

1 -Laboratory Number: 91004076/00122032 Date: 1 • Mar 29, 1990 , ,

Laboratory Number: Date:

Laboratory Number: Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ •

Laboratory Nmnber: 91004076 *

Page 1 • of 4
Initials:

Was any other material reviewed?' 'XO Yes □ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: Submitting agency letter (dated 9-19-89)

1 . ' >

Results of Review

File#: 95-290381 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q8, Q13-Q17, Kl, K2, K4; K5

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on.
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform die appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
■ methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

- ’ • □ Yes □ No X n Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in

• the bench notes?' ■ oYes X QNo □ Unable to Determine

. . Review of Testimony:

. . _ Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

□ Transcript not available. .

3) Testimoriy consistent with the laboratory jeport(s)?

□ Yes

X DNo

□ Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

□ Yes

X DNo

□ Unable to.Determine

- 5)’ Testimony, within bounds of examiner’s expertise?

XD Yes

□ No

□ Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 4
Initials:

Comments •' J
• (Set forthby above question #,. if applicable.
Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File#: 95-290381

#1:-With microscopic. hair examination, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the examination

was performed correctly.. *

#2: The examination results, set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the

documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or, initialed and are in pencil. The bench notes do

not document -why the Negroid hair recovered.from Q5 (victim’s jumpsuit) is not suitable for comparison. ^

The notes conclude items Q4 and Q5 are tom, but there is no documentation of the observed characteristics

leading to that conclusion. • *

#3: Malone testified that “I processed all the items for hair and fibers” and “I removed all the hairs from these

• Review completed at:. -4:00 PM (Time), . 03/13/2001

Total time spent conducting review, (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0:45 hours .

. (Date)

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 4_. pages. . ...

(Signature)

03/13/2001

Page , 3 of 4
Initials: .

Additional Comments
(Set forth by question #, if applicable)

File#: 95-290381

#3 (continued): items”. The notes indicate, and this reviewer has been told, that technicians, process and’ recover

the hair and fiber evidence and that Malone didn’t do technician work.

Malone testified twice that the hair recovered fiom the quilt and the jumpsuit are Negroid hair “fragments”. His

laboratory report does not state that the hair are fragments, (see #4 below)

#4: Malone’s bench notes do not indicate the Negroid hair recovered from Q5 and Q6 are fragments. His notes

are not consistent with his testimony concerning this. -